DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/10/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This non-final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 03/10/2026. Currently, claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 14, 15 and 17 have been amended. No newly added and/or cancelled claims.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 2, 15 and 17 are sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 2, 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as set forth in the previous action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite method and systems for providing shopping support.
Exemplary claim 1 recites in part,
“…acquire current positions of the first terminal device and the second terminal device; (receiving position data)
…acquire a support request from the first terminal device in response to the indication…; (receiving support request data)
…calculate a length of a path along a passage in the store between the first terminal device and the second terminal device based on the position of the first terminal device, the position of the second terminal device, and map information storing a structure of the passage and information about a length of the passage…; (calculating a path length)
…select a store clerk who carries the second terminal device and is capable of responding to the support request from the first terminal device based on the length calculated length of the path and based on a link weight that is a variable based on at least one of a location of the second terminal device and an assignment of the store clerk…; and (determining appropriate store clerk)
…instruct the second terminal device carried by the selected store clerk of support for the customer using the first terminal device…” (sending instruction information)
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) acquiring data (position and support request), 2) calculating a path between two points, 3) determining appropriate store clerk based on calculated path and availability, and 4) transmitting results (selected store clerk and support instruction).
The above steps describe the process of providing shopping support. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements in the form of one or more computing devices (first terminal device, second terminal device and server device) to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract idea identified above. The additional elements represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the claim recites the additional elements of “specifying a position of the first terminal device in the store…and outputting the specified position to the server device…”, “receiving an instruction from the customer and request support from the store clerk in response to a call button activation input”, “specifying the position of the second terminal device in the store… and outputting the specified position to the server device…”, “acquiring a support instruction for the customer who uses the first terminal device and requests support”, “receiving first indication of an availability of a call response…” and “outputting the first indication of the availability of the call response…”. These steps describe collecting, sending and displaying information (support request, position data, support instruction, call response), which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities that do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
In addition, the step of “transmitting the presence of the first terminal device to surroundings by causing a warning light located near the first terminal device to output light in a defined color and in a defined pattern…” simply limits the request transmission using “flashing lights”. The additional element merely confines the request transmission to a particular type of transmission. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the additional elements amount to significantly more. The additional elements in the form of one or more computing devices (first terminal device, second terminal device and server device), represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the steps of “specifying a position of the first terminal device in the store…and outputting the specified position to the server device…”, “receiving an instruction from the customer and request support from the store clerk in response to a call button activation input”, “specifying the position of the second terminal device in the store… and outputting the specified position to the server device…”, “acquiring a support instruction for the customer who uses the first terminal device and requests support”, “receiving first indication of an availability of a call response…” and “outputting the first indication of the availability of the call response…”, while amounting to insignificant extra-solution activities, amounts to courts’ recognized well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions of “transmitting/receiving data over a network”. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
In addition, the step of “transmitting the presence of the first terminal device to surroundings by causing a warning light located near the first terminal device to output light in a defined color and in a defined pattern…” simply limits the request transmission to a particular type of transmission, and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 8 and 14 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13 and 15-19 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
For example, claims 2 and 3 are directed to “determining the path” encompassed by the identified abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2014/0244437 (Longino) in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2022/0395196 (Ovalle et al. – hereinafter Ovalle), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,613,166 (Cortez et al. – hereinafter Cortez).
Referring to claim 1, Longino discloses a shopping support system, comprising:
a first terminal device configured to be carried by a customer in a store during shopping; [See paragraphs 0028, 0029, 0032, 0035, 0047, 0048]
a second terminal device configured to be carried by a store clerk; and [See paragraphs 0030, 0031, 0032]
a server device configured to be communicably connected to the first terminal device and the second terminal device via a communication network, wherein [See paragraphs 0022-0024]
the first terminal device comprises: [See paragraphs 0025-0028]
a display screen; [See paragraphs 0025-0028]
a memory that stores a program; and [See paragraphs 0025-0028]
a processor that, upon execution of the program, is configured to: [See paragraphs 0025-0028]
specify a position of the first terminal device in the store based on a global positioning system of the first terminal device and output the specified position to the server device, wherein the position of the first terminal device is changeable based on movement of the first terminal device as the customer moves through the store; [See paragraphs 0026, 0033, 0035, 0040, 0041, 0049 – A customer’s location, at any particular time, is tracked via GPS data.]
based on an indication that the customer activated a call button output on the display screen;
receive an instruction from the customer and request support from the store clerk; and [See paragraphs 0034, 0035, 0047, 0048]
the server device comprises: [See paragraphs 0022-0024, Fig. 1]
a memory that stores a program; and [See paragraphs 0022-0024, Fig. 1]
a processor that, upon execution of the program, is configured to: [See paragraphs 0022-0024, Fig. 1]
acquire current positions of the first terminal device and the second terminal device; [See paragraphs 0035, 0037, 0053, 0055]
acquire a support request from the first terminal device in response to the indication that the customer activated the call button output on the display screen; [See paragraphs 0035, 0039, 0052]
calculate a length of a path along a passage in the store between the first terminal device and the second terminal device based on the position of the first terminal device, the position of the second terminal device, and map information storing a structure of the passage and information about a length of the passage, resulting in a calculated length of the path; [See paragraphs 0035, 0037, 0038, 0040-0042]
select a store clerk who carries the second terminal device and is capable of responding to the support request from the first terminal device based on the calculated length of the path; and [See paragraphs 0035, 0036, 0037]
instruct the second terminal device carried by the selected store clerk of support for the customer using the first terminal device, wherein other second terminal devices carried by the store clerks other than the selected store clerk are not notified of the support request, and [See paragraphs 0035, 0036, 0037]
the second terminal device comprises:
a display screen; [See paragraphs 0030, 0031]
a memory that stores a program; and [See paragraphs 0030, 0031]
a processor that, upon execution of the program, is configured to: [See paragraphs 0030, 0031]
specify the position of the second terminal device in the store based on a global positioning system of the second terminal device and output the specified position to the server device, wherein the position of the second terminal device is changeable based on movement of the second terminal device as the store clerk moves through the store; [See paragraphs 0026, 0033, 0035, 0040, 0041, 0049 – A store staff’s location, at any particular time, is tracked via GPS data.]
acquire, from the server device, a support instruction for the customer who uses the first terminal device and requests support; [See paragraphs 0036, 0037, 0052, 0059]
receiving, via the display screen, a first indication of an availability of a call response or a second indication of an unavailability of the call response; and [See paragraphs 0037, 0038]
wherein the processor of the first terminal device is further configured to output to the customer, via the display screen, the first indication of the availability of the call response or the second indication of the unavailability of the call response. [See paragraphs 0039, 0040, 0041]
Longino does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
the first terminal device comprises: a processor that, upon execution of the program, is configured to: transmit presence of the first terminal device to surroundings by causing a warning light located near the first terminal device to output light in a defined color and in a defined pattern; and
select a store clerk who carries the second terminal device and is capable of responding to the support request from the first terminal device based on a link weight that is a variable value based on at least one of a location of the second terminal device and an assignment of the store clerk, resulting in a selected store clerk, wherein the link weight is set to a value larger than a defined value based on the store clerk being on a different floor than the customer or based on the store clerk being on a work break, and wherein the link weight is set to a value smaller than the defined value based on the store clerk being assigned to respond to the customer.
Ovalle teaches a system with the limitation: transmit presence of the first terminal device to surroundings by causing a warning light located near the first terminal device to output light in a defined color and in a defined pattern. [See paragraphs 0028, 0034, 0036]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of Longino to have incorporated a call/assistance feature as in Ovalle with the motivation of requesting assistance and alerting the required personnel accordingly. [See Longino paragraphs 0041, 0043, 0053; Ovalle paragraphs 0025-0027]
Cortez teaches a system with the limitation: a selection component configured to select a store clerk who carries the second terminal device and is capable of responding to the support request from the first terminal device based on the calculated length of the path calculated by the path calculation component and based on a link weight that is a variable value based on at least one of a location of the second terminal device and an assignment of details associated with the store clerk, resulting in a selected store clerk, wherein the link weight is set to a value larger than a defined value based on the store clerk being on a different floor than the customer or based on the store clerk being on a work break, and wherein the link weight is set to a value smaller than the defined value based on the store clerk being assigned to respond to the customer; and [See col. 6, line 37-col. 7, line 21; col. 7, line 46-col. 8, line 5; col. 8, lines 33-52 – The link (administrative) weight is dynamically changed based on the characteristics of the links and switches. This is analogous to having a variable link weight based on the characteristics of a store clerk.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of Longino and Ovalle to have incorporated a path determination feature as in Cortez with the motivation of determining a path/direction for a store clerk. [See Longino paragraphs 0041, 0043, 0053; Cortez col. 3, lines 31-45]
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Longino, Ovalle and Cortez discloses the shopping support system according to claim 1, wherein the processor of the second terminal device is further configured to:
output, to the server device, information indicating that the support request from the customer can or cannot be responded to, and not instruct, to support the customer, the second terminal device that outputs the information indicating that the support request from the customer cannot be responded to. [See Longino paragraphs 0036, 0037, 0058 – A busy assistant is not instructed to support the customer. The store server selects the next closest available assistant.]
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Longino, Ovalle and Cortez discloses the shopping support system according to claim 4, wherein the processor of the second terminal device is further configured to: instruct, to support the customer, the second terminal device that declares that the support request from the customer is respondable to among second terminal devices present in a place within a predetermined path length from the first terminal device. [See Longino paragraphs 0034, 0036, 0058, 0059]
Referring to claims 8, 11 and 12, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 1, 4 and 5, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Referring to claim 14 and 17, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 1 and 5, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longino in view of Ovalle and Cortez as applied to claims 1, 8 and 14 above, and further in view of KR 20010010387 (Eom et al. – hereinafter Eom).
Referring to claim 2, the combination of Longino, Ovalle and Cortez discloses the shopping support system according to claim 1 above. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
wherein the map information represents the structure of the passage in the store by nodes indicating coordinate positions and links connecting the nodes,
each link stores a link length that is a length of the link and the link weight that is a coefficient to be multiplied to the link length when the path is calculated, and
the processor of the server device is further configured to calculate the path based on a sum of multiplied values of the link length and the link weight.
Eom teaches a system with the limitations:
wherein the map information represents the structure of the passage in the store by nodes indicating coordinate positions and links connecting the nodes, [See page 3, paragraph 6; page 4, paragraphs 1-8]
each link stores a link length that is a length of the link and the link weight that is a coefficient to be multiplied to the link length when the path is calculated, and [See page 5, paragraphs 1-4; page 6, paragraph 6 – page 7, paragraph 2]
the processor of the server device is further configured to calculate the path based on a sum of multiplied values of the link length and the link weight. [See page 2, paragraphs 2-5; page 5, paragraphs 1-4; page 6, paragraph 6 – page 7, paragraph 2]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of the combination of Longino, Ovalle and Cortez to have incorporated a path determination feature as in Eom with the motivation of determining a path/direction to a customer needing assistance. [See Longino paragraphs 0041, 0043, 0053; Eom page 1, paragraph 1]
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Longino, Ovalle, Cortez and Eom discloses the shopping support system according to claim 2, wherein a link weight larger that 1 is given to a link from a sales floor of the store to a back office. [See Eom page 5, paragraphs 1-4; page 6, paragraph 6 – page 7, paragraph 2]
Referring to claim 9 and 10, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 2 and 3, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Referring to claim 15 and 16, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 2 and 3, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Claims 6, 7, 13, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longino in view of Ovalle and Cortez as applied to claims 1, 8 and 14 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2019/0228459 (Levesque et al. – hereinafter Levesque).
Referring to claim 6, the combination of Longino, Ovalle and Cortez discloses the shopping support system according to claim 1 above. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein the first terminal device is affixed to a wheeled shopping cart.
Levesque teaches a system with the limitation: wherein the first terminal device is affixed to a wheeled shopping cart. [See paragraphs 0040, 0055, claim 20]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of the combination of Longino, Ovalle and Cortez to have incorporated a shopping cart configuration as in Levesque with the motivation of efficiently providing shopping assistance to a user. [See Longino paragraphs 0006, 0032, 0033; Levesque paragraphs 0004, 0005, 0015-0019]
Referring to claim 7, the combination of Longino, Cortez and Levesque discloses the shopping support system according to claim 1, wherein the first terminal device is affixed to a hand-held shopping cart. [See Levesque paragraphs 0040, 0055, claim 20]
Referring to claim 13, it recites similar limitation as set forth in claim 6, and therefore is rejected based on similar rationale.
Referring to claims 18 and 19, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 6 and 7, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed under section 101 above, the claimed invention(s) is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claimed shopping support system describes providing shopping support to a customer by selecting a store clerk capable of responding to a support request from a customer to support the customer. The system acquires location information associated with each store clerk and customer(s) and determines a store clerk available to respond to a support request. The determination is based on path calculation and store clerk availability. Thus, the claimed invention covers “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claimed invention uses computer technology to provide a business solution of selecting the optimal store clerk to fulfil a customer service request. The claimed invention collects support request, as well as location data associated with a customer and one or more store clerks. A store clerk is selected based on calculation using the collected data and one or more defined rules. The selected store clerk is notified. Thus, the claimed invention covers “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The recited first terminal device, second terminal device and server device describe the computer technology to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract idea identified above.
In addition, the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. “Transmitting/receiving data over a network” has been held by the courts to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions.
Further, the step of “transmitting the presence of the first terminal device to surroundings by causing a warning light located near the first terminal device to output light in a defined color and in a defined pattern…” simply limits the request transmission to a particular type of transmission, and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities See MPEP 2106.05(g).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
103 Rejection(s)
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. §103 in view of Longino and Cortez; claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. §103 in view of Longino, Cortez, and Eom; and claims 6, 7, 13, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §103 in view of Longino, Cortez, and Levesque have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that some of these arguments are directed to newly added amendments, and have been addressed in the current rejection.
The system of Longino teaches that the store server computer continuously receives information from all employee mobile smart devices. See paragraph 0040. In addition, Longino teaches that the location of a customer can be determined using GPS data associated with the customer device. See paragraph 0035. Further, Longino teaches that the store may send a copy of the customer's request for assistance to all available store employees or simply send a copy to the available store employee with the shortest queue of customer request or to the store employee closest to the customer. See paragraph 0035.
Accordingly, the system of Longino teaches or suggests the recited limitations.
“In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212…” See MPEP 2141.01(a).
The system of Cortez teaches routing of circuits in a network using dynamic self-adjusting link weights. See Abstract. The system of Cortez selects the best available path for routing circuits based on calculated link weights and other parameters. This is analogous to selecting the most appropriate store clerk to fulfil a customer support request.
In addition, the system of Cortez teaches that one or more thresholds may be defined, as well as values assigned to each link weight based on one or more characteristics of the link. See col. 7, line 38-col. 8, line 52.
Accordingly, the teachings of the combination of Longino and Cortez, at least teaches or suggests, the claimed limitations.
The teachings of the combination of Longino, Cortez and Eom, at least teaches or suggests, the claimed limitations.
The teachings of the combination of Longino, Cortez and Levesque, at least teaches or suggests, the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FAHD OBEID can be reached at 5712703324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627